Development and Cooperation


	Contributions from the Column Focus In pursuit of Global Public Goods “A failure of US and EU leadership” “Analytic culture” Self-serving giants in a multipolar world Back to San Francisco Strategic partnership 05/2006		Back to San Francisco As far as environmental matters are concerned, the global policy-arena is fragmented and ineffective. The World Trade Organisation and the World Bank do not face global- environment counterparts with comparable influence. The institutional landscape needs to be reorganised before major catastrophes shake the earth and humankind. [ By Hermann E. Ott ] Humankind is about to throw Earth’s ecological systems off balance. For this reason, Paul Crutzen, who discovered and explained the hole in the ozone layer and won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, no longer calls our geological age Holocene, but rather “Anthropocene” – the era shaped by people. It is worth noting that he is dealing with geological, not human history. Because of technical civilisation, our species has become a determining factor of Earth systems over the past two hundred years. For example, by using fossil fuels, humankind is influencing the Earth’s carbon cycle. For 300,000 years, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was never as high as it is today. Nobody knows exactly how the climate system will react. To put things in perspective: human beings have only been around for about 50,000 years. Climate experts are using increasingly graphic terms to warn of the changes we are heading towards (Schellnhuber, 2006). It seems that we are nearing the “tipping point”, from which there will be no return. It is more and more probable that Greenland’s ice will melt and the sea level rise by up to seven metres as a result. The large rainforests of the Congo and Amazon are on the brink of collapse. We cannot predict the consequences for the Earth’s water balance. Humankind’s supply would suffer considerably – including food –, even if some places may get a little more water. All efforts to conserve biological diversity will have been in vain. Institutional weakness Can we trust on chances of salvation arising as the danger grows? So far, the mechanisms and instruments of environmental policy-making are not up to the challenges. Climate protection provides a telling example. We have the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, which promotes political and technological cooperation. Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol, which was passed back in 1997, finally came into force in 2005. In the protocol, industrialised nations have committed to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by around five percent altogether. The Kyoto Protocol is without doubt a historic milestone. For the first time, countries have agreed to limit CO2 emissions. Negotiations have also started on clarifying what to do after 2012, when first-generation obligations expire for industrialised nations. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the fact that the Kyoto Protocol only amounts to a tiny step. The five percent reduction industrialised nations promised is equivalent to only two percent of world emissions. But by 2050, half of all greenhouse gases will have to be avoided if the climate is to be stabilised. Furthermore, neither the USA nor Australia are taking part in the Kyoto Protocol – and large emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa are also still offside. There are proposals on how to proceed (Brouns and Ott, 2005). Nonetheless, this process is moving very slowly and remains prone to many steps backwards. So far, many economists and politicians simply cannot imagine what economic growth might look like without oil, gas and coal. On top of that, the large corporations that dominate the fossil energy system resist change with all their might, and the institutions and processes of the climate regime are weak. Since all decisions have to be made on a consensus basis, oil-exporting countries effectively have veto power, for example. Depressingly, the entire arena for global policy-making on the environment is just as inadequate (see WBGU, 2001). There is, of course, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), based in Nairobi. But this organisation is small and not independent. It has little operational authority and its funding is instable. UNEP’s impact depends primarily on the performance and reputation of its executive director. Under Egyptian Mostafa Tolba and German Klaus Töpfer, these were high – but low when Canadian Elizabeth Dowdeswell held the top position in the period in between. Hopefully, Achim Steiner, the new executive director, again a German, will prove to be a strong manager. After all, as an experienced multilateral diplomat, he is bringing along some important qualifications. Time and again, there have been initiatives to strengthen international environmental bodies and policy-making as a whole. A Global Ministerial Environment Forum was set up, with regular meetings – and some political weight. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wanted to strengthen the environmental dimension of multilateral policy-making, but these ideas fell by the wayside along with others elements of his reform agenda. An initiative led by France to grant UNEP the status of an independent international organisation has also not been successful so far. Therefore, there are no global counterparts to the influential agencies dealing with trade and finance (World Trade Organisation, World Bank and International Monetary Fund). Rather, international environmental policy-making takes place in the context of over 100 global and 140 regional multilateral agreements (www.unep.org/DPDL/law/Law_instruments/index.asp). What is more, they each deal with highly specific topics (such as marine protection, climate and ozone protection, protection of species and many others). The institutional diversity is astounding. Many agreements have succeeded in regulating or even resolving individual problems. Examples are the hole in the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) and the protection of endangered species (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). This structure, which has evolved over time more or less chaotically, has serious drawbacks, however. The policy-arena is fragmented, consisting of many independent units which are not coordinated sufficiently. Moreover, most have only scant funds at their disposal. In addition, the secretariats of the agreements are scattered all around the world – Bangkok, Bonn, Geneva, Montreal and Nairobi. This dispersion generates costs, makes synergies unlikely, and does not help them to recruit qualified staff. Most importantly, however, international environmental affairs suffer from ineffective decision-making procedures, since as a general rule, consensus among all parties is needed. Apart from the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which has “demonstrated that the unthinkable can be done” (Konrad von Moltke), long-winded processes are the norm and decisions are typically based on the lowest common denominator. Moreover, as a general rule, consensus among all parties is needed. Unfortunately, sanctions for non-compliance with international obligations are often not provided for. In other cases, there are no means to enforce such sanctions. In short, both the global legislation machinery and global law enforcement are deficient. Various reform proposals Ideas abound on how to reform the international setting, but, so far, there is no sign of institutions being fundamentally re-organised any time soon. The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) has declared itself in favour of creating an “Earth Alliance” with comprehensive responsibilities and an Earth Council. Other parties support enhancing the status of UNEP, as was mentioned above. Moreover, there are proposals directed towards establishing an “Organisation for Environment and Development”, which would also include the UN Development Programme (UNDP). Another approach would be to cluster several global-environment institutions in one place in order to strengthen their impact. All these proposals, however, are probably still too piecemeal. Perhaps one should consider fundamentally re-organising the international system. After all, the environment is not its only blind spot. Social policy is also hardly made at the global level. While the global polica-arena is systematically geared to international peacekeeping (UNO) as well as to dealing with matters of finance, monetary flows and trade (World Bank, IMF, WTO), creating a fair and just world is largely left to the efforts of international markets and the initiative of each individual (Wuppertal Institute, 2005). It is essential to start here, to create institutions to protect the Earth and its people before technical civilisation does irreparable damage to ecological systems. History, however, does not inspire much faith in the international system’s ability to reform. So far, progress was only ever made after large catastrophes. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia established the European system of states, marking the end of the Thirty Years’ War, which had cost a quarter of Europe’s population their lives. The founding of the League of Nations in 1919 followed the First World War, with around 20 million casualties. The League of Nations – ignored by the USA and ridiculed by Nazi-Germany – was, nonetheless, far too weak institutionally to prevent the Second World War with 50 million casualties. Only after the war, in June 1945, did the United Nations Conference take place in San Francisco. Without the USA’s massive commitment, not even that would have happened. Secret service files that have in the meantime become accessible prove that the inception of the United Nations depended on the commitment, appeal and effort of the USA (Schlesinger, 2003). Presently, it is difficult to imagine this kind of commitment from the USA to set up a fair and sustainable international system. Until the dynamics of domestic US politics change, it is the responsibility of Europeans and large emerging “anchor” countries such as China, India, South Africa or Brazil to work towards a sustainable world order. Doing so makes sense, as has not only been proven by the Kyoto Protocol’s coming into force against the wishes of the USA. The treaty banning land mines was similarly adopted against the will of the USA and has entered into force. The same applies for the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague. In all cases, a group of relatively influential states was committed to the specific cause and enjoyed support from civil society organisations. Such coalitions can help to decisively improve the international system (Ott and Chung, 2005). But we don’t do not have much time. Geological and biological systems do not wait for humankind. From a certain point in time – we don’t know when, but we know it is drawing nearer – the climate system will tip into a different, more dangerous state. It is not exaggerated to compare our time to the one before the Second World War. This time, humankind should act before foreseeable catastrophes run their course. Reference: Brouns, B., und Ott H., 2005: „Richtig verstandene Solidarität“, E+Z/D+C, Mai, 207-209 Ott, H., und Chung, M., 2005: Das „alte“ Europa – strategischer Akteur für globale Nachhaltigkeit, in: Jahrbuch Ökologie 2006, München: C.H. Beck Schellnhuber, H.J. (Hg.), 2006: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge: University Press Schlesinger, C., 2003: Act of Creation, Colorado: Westview Press Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltverän- derungen (WBGU), 2001: Welt im Wandel. Neue Strukturen globaler Umweltpolitik. Berlin u.a.: Springer Verlag Wuppertal Institut (Hg.), 2005: Fair Future. München: C.H. Beck Dr. Hermann E. Ott heads the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. hermann.ott@wupperinst.org